Report comment

Criticism of a Supreme Court decision can either be in the interests of establishing legal clarity, or to articulate a special interest. The former is always welcome and English Common Law is studded with examples of eminent lawyers contributing to judicial
clarity. The latter is, of course, usually readily recognisable since it tends to argue towards a preconceived end.
I am sure that this report is closely argued and will repay careful consideration. However I doubt that a charge that the Unison judgement revereses legal causality will hold water. The practical eventuation of any legal provision must be a reasonable subject of judicial
scrutiny. To judge whether a provision is unlawful it is first necessary to establish its practical effect. The law is not a Platonic artefact.